Are we as a society being kept from discussing the big issues?
- Thread starter muir
- Start date
-
- Tags
- right wing nut job
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1053837-we-may-be-living-in-the-matrix-says-engineer/
[h=1]We May Be Living in the Matrix, Says Engineer[/h] [h=2][/h] By Tara MacIsaac, Epoch Times | October 31, 2014
The universe is full of mysteries that challenge our current knowledge. In "Beyond Science" Epoch Times collects stories about these strange phenomena to stimulate the imagination and open up previously undreamed of possibilities. Are they true? You decide.
Jim Elvidge will discuss his observations on how our world is like a computer program at the Follow the Truth: The Conspiracy Show Summit in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, on Nov. 16. The summit will bring together researchers exploring the power of the mind, past lives, time travel, and more.
Jim Elvidge (Courtesy of Jim Elvidge)
Our world isn’t necessarily a computer program designed by parasitic futuristic robots like in the movie “The Matrix.” But it does bear a striking resemblance to a digital simulation or computer program, according to engineer Jim Elvidge.
Elvidge has worked with cutting-edge digital technology for decades. He holds a masters degree in electrical engineering from Cornell University as well as multiple patents in digital signal processing, and he has published papers about remote sensing and other related topics in peer-reviewed journals. Combining his knowledge of digital systems with quantum mechanics, Elvidge has found that we may be living in something like a computer program.
The matter, the “stuff” we seem to touch and feel, is actually mostly empty space. Our senses deceive us.
Early physicists pictured atoms as pin-ball-like particles piled up tightly together to form molecules. Scientists later discovered that there’s a whole lot of space between those atoms. And within the atoms, there’s a whole lot of space too. The further we delve into the subatomic world, the more space we find, and the less material everything seems. The solid and tangible become ethereal.
Top: (Frank Peters/iStock/Thinkstock) Left: (Dorling Kindersley/Thinkstock) Center: (Yasna Ten/iStock/Thinkstock) Right: (Antares_J/iStock/Thinkstock)
As to what that space is exactly, there are various understandings or theories. Elvidge understands it to be data. Elvidge believes that, as trends in particle physics progress, we will ultimately find that there is no “stuff” at all; matter is just data. And what’s behind that data is something like the binary code of a computer program. Furthermore, human consciousness may live in a sort of cosmic Internet, only to be accessed through the interface of our brain-computers.
[h=2]A World of Data[/h] Elvidge builds on the ideas of influential theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) who wrote in his book “Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics”: “It is not unreasonable to imagine that information sits at the core of physics, just as it sits at the core of a computer.”
John Archibald Wheeler (Emielke/Wikimedia Commons)
Wheeler summed up his theory in the words “It from bit.”
Everything is made up of bits; the word “bit” is defined as a basic unit of information, also called a binary digit, used in connection with computers.
In his paper “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links,” Wheeler wrote: “Every ‘it’—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely (even if in some contexts indirectly) from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. ‘It from bit’ symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses.”
In the binary choices, the yes-or-no questions, human consciousness may assert its free will. Wheeler called it a “participatory universe.” Elvidge called it a “consciousness-driven digital reality.”
Binary code (Shutterstock)
Quantum physicists have shown that matter exists in an indeterminate or oscillating state until an observer fixes it in a particular form. For example, photons can exist in either wave or particle form, but it is the act of observing that determines which form they take; it is human consciousness that drives the change.
Here’s a thought experiment to illustrate how Elvidge applies these observations in quantum physics to our daily reality in a “digital system.”
[h=2]A Trippy Thought Experiment[/h]
Flower (Shutterstock)
Pretend your surroundings right now are part of a digital virtual reality. The pen on the table or the flower in the garden may exist in an essentially indeterminate form. All that’s necessary is information, or bits, that determine its outward appearance. Only when you break open that pen or look at that flower’s petals under a microscope does the program needs to fill in more data.
Only when someone observes something does it become “real.” Otherwise, the inside of the pen or the molecular structure of the flower exist as a sort of indeterminate potential. Elvidge compares this to the way subatomic particles seem to fix themselves from an indeterminate or oscillating form into a more stable form upon observation.
[h=2]How Your Brain Is Like a Computer[/h]
(Vladgrin/iStock/Thinkstock)
Elvidge doesn’t think consciousness originates in the brain. It is, rather, accessed through the brain. The consciousness could exist in something like an Internet network. He said you can call this network, this place of origin, God or the divine if you want, though he doesn’t use those words.
“The brain is like a cache,” he said. “[In our] browsers, we have caches of the most recently surfed websites … A cache is an efficient way to process information and our brains may be doing the same thing.”
Furthermore, if the consciousness exists in a network out there, it can access information beyond the brain, beyond a person’s individual experience. He urges others to listen more to intuition.
“We no longer have the ability to analyze the heck out of everything,” he said. If you take too long to think about solving a problem, that problem will have changed by the time you find a solution in this fast-paced world. “You have to use your intuition,” he said.
“Some of the answers to that problem may be packed away in your brain somewhere, maybe not,” Elvidge said. “If you meditate and ask for help to solve a problem, often you get that help.” This inspiration may come from other people or even other entities in this cosmic Internet where the consciousness resides.
His understanding of the universe as a digital system doesn’t mean he sees existence as hard, cold, and mechanical. There’s still lots of beauty in “this digital learning lab we call life here on Earth,” Elvidge said. There’s room for the spiritual and the divine in this concept of a digital reality.
[h=2]It May Be Digital, But It Can Also Be ‘Spiritual’[/h]
(Agsandrew/iStock/Thinkstock)
Elvidge cited evidence of reincarnation, including the statement by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1975 concerning the work of reincarnation researcher Dr. Ian Stevenson: “In regard to reincarnation he has painstakingly and unemotionally collected a detailed series of cases … in which the evidence is difficult to explain on any other grounds.”
“There’s really no such thing as dying, it’s just ending this simulation,” Elvidge said, noting that “simulation” has certain connotations he’d rather avoid, but to simplify the concept he uses the word. “Spiritual” is also a word with certain connotations, he said, though his digital theory incorporates many phenomena people consider spiritual.
Neils Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, found in the ancient Chinese science of Taoism true principles of duality and interconnectedness. Whether you call it yin and yang or binary code, you’re attempting to describe the deep and fundamental nature of reality.
Concerning the wisdom of ancient spiritual practices, Elvidge said, “These things didn’t come from nowhere, they came from people’s experiences.” They may certainly have truth to them and shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as out-dated.
[h=2]The Elusive Theory of Everything?[/h] Elvidge hopes the theory of a consciousness-driven digital reality may be embraced as the long sought-after Theory of Everything. Physicists have searched for a Theory of Everything to reconcile apparent disagreements between classical physics and quantum physics. Elvidge said this digital theory allows for the phenomena observed in both.
Looking at the history of science and plotting its potential future course, Elvide said we can expect a major shift soon. In the distant past, he said, humans viewed the world within tribal boundaries. Later, people realized there were multiple continents, a whole planet, other planets and solar systems, other galaxies. Now, physicists theorize about other universes. If you plot these expansions in understanding on logarithmic paper, said Elvidge, it forms a straight line. He said we are “exponentially extending the boundaries of our thinking.”
Follow @TaraMacIsaac on Twitter, visit the Epoch Times Beyond Science page on Facebook, and subscribe to the Beyond Science newsletter to continue exploring the new frontiers of science!
[h=1]We May Be Living in the Matrix, Says Engineer[/h] [h=2][/h] By Tara MacIsaac, Epoch Times | October 31, 2014
The universe is full of mysteries that challenge our current knowledge. In "Beyond Science" Epoch Times collects stories about these strange phenomena to stimulate the imagination and open up previously undreamed of possibilities. Are they true? You decide.
Jim Elvidge will discuss his observations on how our world is like a computer program at the Follow the Truth: The Conspiracy Show Summit in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, on Nov. 16. The summit will bring together researchers exploring the power of the mind, past lives, time travel, and more.
Jim Elvidge (Courtesy of Jim Elvidge)Our world isn’t necessarily a computer program designed by parasitic futuristic robots like in the movie “The Matrix.” But it does bear a striking resemblance to a digital simulation or computer program, according to engineer Jim Elvidge.
Elvidge has worked with cutting-edge digital technology for decades. He holds a masters degree in electrical engineering from Cornell University as well as multiple patents in digital signal processing, and he has published papers about remote sensing and other related topics in peer-reviewed journals. Combining his knowledge of digital systems with quantum mechanics, Elvidge has found that we may be living in something like a computer program.
The matter, the “stuff” we seem to touch and feel, is actually mostly empty space. Our senses deceive us.
Early physicists pictured atoms as pin-ball-like particles piled up tightly together to form molecules. Scientists later discovered that there’s a whole lot of space between those atoms. And within the atoms, there’s a whole lot of space too. The further we delve into the subatomic world, the more space we find, and the less material everything seems. The solid and tangible become ethereal.
Top: (Frank Peters/iStock/Thinkstock) Left: (Dorling Kindersley/Thinkstock) Center: (Yasna Ten/iStock/Thinkstock) Right: (Antares_J/iStock/Thinkstock)As to what that space is exactly, there are various understandings or theories. Elvidge understands it to be data. Elvidge believes that, as trends in particle physics progress, we will ultimately find that there is no “stuff” at all; matter is just data. And what’s behind that data is something like the binary code of a computer program. Furthermore, human consciousness may live in a sort of cosmic Internet, only to be accessed through the interface of our brain-computers.
[h=2]A World of Data[/h] Elvidge builds on the ideas of influential theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) who wrote in his book “Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics”: “It is not unreasonable to imagine that information sits at the core of physics, just as it sits at the core of a computer.”
John Archibald Wheeler (Emielke/Wikimedia Commons)Wheeler summed up his theory in the words “It from bit.”
Everything is made up of bits; the word “bit” is defined as a basic unit of information, also called a binary digit, used in connection with computers.
In his paper “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links,” Wheeler wrote: “Every ‘it’—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely (even if in some contexts indirectly) from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. ‘It from bit’ symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses.”
In the binary choices, the yes-or-no questions, human consciousness may assert its free will. Wheeler called it a “participatory universe.” Elvidge called it a “consciousness-driven digital reality.”
Binary code (Shutterstock)Quantum physicists have shown that matter exists in an indeterminate or oscillating state until an observer fixes it in a particular form. For example, photons can exist in either wave or particle form, but it is the act of observing that determines which form they take; it is human consciousness that drives the change.
Here’s a thought experiment to illustrate how Elvidge applies these observations in quantum physics to our daily reality in a “digital system.”
[h=2]A Trippy Thought Experiment[/h]
Flower (Shutterstock)Pretend your surroundings right now are part of a digital virtual reality. The pen on the table or the flower in the garden may exist in an essentially indeterminate form. All that’s necessary is information, or bits, that determine its outward appearance. Only when you break open that pen or look at that flower’s petals under a microscope does the program needs to fill in more data.
Only when someone observes something does it become “real.” Otherwise, the inside of the pen or the molecular structure of the flower exist as a sort of indeterminate potential. Elvidge compares this to the way subatomic particles seem to fix themselves from an indeterminate or oscillating form into a more stable form upon observation.
[h=2]How Your Brain Is Like a Computer[/h]
(Vladgrin/iStock/Thinkstock)Elvidge doesn’t think consciousness originates in the brain. It is, rather, accessed through the brain. The consciousness could exist in something like an Internet network. He said you can call this network, this place of origin, God or the divine if you want, though he doesn’t use those words.
“The brain is like a cache,” he said. “[In our] browsers, we have caches of the most recently surfed websites … A cache is an efficient way to process information and our brains may be doing the same thing.”
Furthermore, if the consciousness exists in a network out there, it can access information beyond the brain, beyond a person’s individual experience. He urges others to listen more to intuition.
“We no longer have the ability to analyze the heck out of everything,” he said. If you take too long to think about solving a problem, that problem will have changed by the time you find a solution in this fast-paced world. “You have to use your intuition,” he said.
“Some of the answers to that problem may be packed away in your brain somewhere, maybe not,” Elvidge said. “If you meditate and ask for help to solve a problem, often you get that help.” This inspiration may come from other people or even other entities in this cosmic Internet where the consciousness resides.
His understanding of the universe as a digital system doesn’t mean he sees existence as hard, cold, and mechanical. There’s still lots of beauty in “this digital learning lab we call life here on Earth,” Elvidge said. There’s room for the spiritual and the divine in this concept of a digital reality.
[h=2]It May Be Digital, But It Can Also Be ‘Spiritual’[/h]
(Agsandrew/iStock/Thinkstock)Elvidge cited evidence of reincarnation, including the statement by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1975 concerning the work of reincarnation researcher Dr. Ian Stevenson: “In regard to reincarnation he has painstakingly and unemotionally collected a detailed series of cases … in which the evidence is difficult to explain on any other grounds.”
“There’s really no such thing as dying, it’s just ending this simulation,” Elvidge said, noting that “simulation” has certain connotations he’d rather avoid, but to simplify the concept he uses the word. “Spiritual” is also a word with certain connotations, he said, though his digital theory incorporates many phenomena people consider spiritual.
Neils Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, found in the ancient Chinese science of Taoism true principles of duality and interconnectedness. Whether you call it yin and yang or binary code, you’re attempting to describe the deep and fundamental nature of reality.
Concerning the wisdom of ancient spiritual practices, Elvidge said, “These things didn’t come from nowhere, they came from people’s experiences.” They may certainly have truth to them and shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as out-dated.
[h=2]The Elusive Theory of Everything?[/h] Elvidge hopes the theory of a consciousness-driven digital reality may be embraced as the long sought-after Theory of Everything. Physicists have searched for a Theory of Everything to reconcile apparent disagreements between classical physics and quantum physics. Elvidge said this digital theory allows for the phenomena observed in both.
Looking at the history of science and plotting its potential future course, Elvide said we can expect a major shift soon. In the distant past, he said, humans viewed the world within tribal boundaries. Later, people realized there were multiple continents, a whole planet, other planets and solar systems, other galaxies. Now, physicists theorize about other universes. If you plot these expansions in understanding on logarithmic paper, said Elvidge, it forms a straight line. He said we are “exponentially extending the boundaries of our thinking.”
Follow @TaraMacIsaac on Twitter, visit the Epoch Times Beyond Science page on Facebook, and subscribe to the Beyond Science newsletter to continue exploring the new frontiers of science!
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore
[h=1]Egregore[/h]
Egregore (also egregor) is an occult concept representing a "thoughtform" or "collective group mind", an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme.
[h=2]History[/h] The first author to adapt "egregore" in a modern language seems to be the French poet Victor Hugo, in La Légende des Siècles ("The Legend of the Ages"), First Series, 1859, where he uses the word "égrégore" first as an adjective, then as a noun, while leaving the meaning obscure.[SUP][1][/SUP] The author seems to have needed a word rhyming with words ending in the sound "or". It would not be the only example of word creation by Victor Hugo. However, the word is the normal form that the Greek word ἑγρήγορος (Watcher) would take in French. This was the term used in the Book of Enoch for great angel-like spirits.
Eliphas Lévi, in Le Grand Arcane ("The Great Mystery", 1868) identifies "egregors" with the tradition concerning the "Watchers", the fathers of the nephilim, describing them as "terrible beings" that "crush us without pity because they are unaware of our existence."[SUP][2][/SUP]
The concept of the egregore as a group thoughtform was developed in works of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the Rosicrucians[SUP][3][/SUP] and has been referenced by writers such as Valentin Tomberg.
A well known concept of the egregore is the GOTOS of the Fraternitas Saturni.[SUP][4][/SUP]
[h=2]Contemporary usage[/h] Gaetan Delaforge, in Gnosis magazine in 1987, defines an egregore as a kind of group mind which is created when people consciously come together for a common purpose."[SUP][5][/SUP]
The concept has enjoyed renewed popularity among practitioners of chaos magic,[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] following the Corporate Metabolism series of articles by Paco Xander Nathan, which were published in 2001.
The result of a synergy of thought could be the most concise description of this state of mind.
The notion of "egregor" also appears in Daniil Andreyev's Roza Mira, where it represents the shining cloud-like spirit associated with the Church. It is a common belief in Russia that the word "egregor" originated from this spiritual book.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
The Russian occult movement DEIR, led by Dmitry Verischchagin, also employs this concept.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
Egregore is also used in relation to the Montreal Surrealists, best known as Les Automatistes, in Ray Ellenwood's Egregore : a history of the Montréal automatist movement[SUP][6][/SUP]
The protagonist of the 1970 novel "Be Not Content" (about the early days of LSD) is named "Abel Egregore." [SUP][7][/SUP]
[h=2]See also[/h]
[h=1]Egregore[/h]
Egregore (also egregor) is an occult concept representing a "thoughtform" or "collective group mind", an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme.
[h=2]History[/h] The first author to adapt "egregore" in a modern language seems to be the French poet Victor Hugo, in La Légende des Siècles ("The Legend of the Ages"), First Series, 1859, where he uses the word "égrégore" first as an adjective, then as a noun, while leaving the meaning obscure.[SUP][1][/SUP] The author seems to have needed a word rhyming with words ending in the sound "or". It would not be the only example of word creation by Victor Hugo. However, the word is the normal form that the Greek word ἑγρήγορος (Watcher) would take in French. This was the term used in the Book of Enoch for great angel-like spirits.
Eliphas Lévi, in Le Grand Arcane ("The Great Mystery", 1868) identifies "egregors" with the tradition concerning the "Watchers", the fathers of the nephilim, describing them as "terrible beings" that "crush us without pity because they are unaware of our existence."[SUP][2][/SUP]
The concept of the egregore as a group thoughtform was developed in works of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the Rosicrucians[SUP][3][/SUP] and has been referenced by writers such as Valentin Tomberg.
A well known concept of the egregore is the GOTOS of the Fraternitas Saturni.[SUP][4][/SUP]
[h=2]Contemporary usage[/h] Gaetan Delaforge, in Gnosis magazine in 1987, defines an egregore as a kind of group mind which is created when people consciously come together for a common purpose."[SUP][5][/SUP]
The concept has enjoyed renewed popularity among practitioners of chaos magic,[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] following the Corporate Metabolism series of articles by Paco Xander Nathan, which were published in 2001.
The result of a synergy of thought could be the most concise description of this state of mind.
The notion of "egregor" also appears in Daniil Andreyev's Roza Mira, where it represents the shining cloud-like spirit associated with the Church. It is a common belief in Russia that the word "egregor" originated from this spiritual book.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
The Russian occult movement DEIR, led by Dmitry Verischchagin, also employs this concept.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
Egregore is also used in relation to the Montreal Surrealists, best known as Les Automatistes, in Ray Ellenwood's Egregore : a history of the Montréal automatist movement[SUP][6][/SUP]
The protagonist of the 1970 novel "Be Not Content" (about the early days of LSD) is named "Abel Egregore." [SUP][7][/SUP]
[h=2]See also[/h]
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Peace in our time?
The world needs to keep up the pressure, it is working
http://rt.com/news/202047-israel-generals-spy-peace/
[h=1]105 Israeli ex-generals, spy chiefs call on Netanyahu to make peace with Palestinians[/h]
The largest-ever protest by Israeli top brass has taken place, with at least 105 retired generals and intelligence chiefs writing a letter to premier Benjamin Netanyahu, urging him to “initiate a diplomatic process” for peace with Palestine.
"We, the undersigned, reserve IDF commanders and retired police officers, who have fought in Israel’s military campaigns, know firsthand of the heavy and painful price exacted by wars…. Here we are again sending our children out onto the battlefield, watching them don their uniforms and combat vests and go out to fight in Operation Protective Edge,” the letter read.
A few of those who signed the letter told the state Mako-Channel 2 News that, in their opinion, Israel had the strength and means to come to a two-state roadmap to get out of the current crisis.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/11/05/384841/eu-urges-creation-of-palestinian-state/
New EU foreign chief urges creation of Palestinian state
Federica Mogherini, the EU's newly appointed foreign policy chiefThe European Union (EU)'s newly appointed foreign policy chief has called for the creation of a Palestinian state within the five years of her term in office.
Speaking to journalists from some European newspapers on Tuesday, Federica Mogherini said simple recognition of the Palestinian state by European countries like Sweden is not enough.
"I would be happy if by the end of my term, a Palestinian state existed," the former Italian foreign minister said.
The world needs to keep up the pressure, it is working
http://rt.com/news/202047-israel-generals-spy-peace/
[h=1]105 Israeli ex-generals, spy chiefs call on Netanyahu to make peace with Palestinians[/h]
The largest-ever protest by Israeli top brass has taken place, with at least 105 retired generals and intelligence chiefs writing a letter to premier Benjamin Netanyahu, urging him to “initiate a diplomatic process” for peace with Palestine.
"We, the undersigned, reserve IDF commanders and retired police officers, who have fought in Israel’s military campaigns, know firsthand of the heavy and painful price exacted by wars…. Here we are again sending our children out onto the battlefield, watching them don their uniforms and combat vests and go out to fight in Operation Protective Edge,” the letter read.
A few of those who signed the letter told the state Mako-Channel 2 News that, in their opinion, Israel had the strength and means to come to a two-state roadmap to get out of the current crisis.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/11/05/384841/eu-urges-creation-of-palestinian-state/
New EU foreign chief urges creation of Palestinian state
Federica Mogherini, the EU's newly appointed foreign policy chiefThe European Union (EU)'s newly appointed foreign policy chief has called for the creation of a Palestinian state within the five years of her term in office.
Speaking to journalists from some European newspapers on Tuesday, Federica Mogherini said simple recognition of the Palestinian state by European countries like Sweden is not enough.
"I would be happy if by the end of my term, a Palestinian state existed," the former Italian foreign minister said.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://rinf.com/alt-news/sicence-te...heory-says-parallel-universes-exist-interact/
[h=1]New quantum mechanics theory says parallel universes exist, interact[/h] 2014/11/04 5 Comments 2,133 Views
To the average person, quantum mechanics is the convoluted, science fiction-y branch of physics. A radical new theory plays into that, proposing that parallel universes exist and interact with each other ‒ and that scientists may be able to test for them.
Prof. Howard Wiseman, a physicist at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, along with his collaborators Dr. Michael Hall, also of Griffith University, and University of California, Davis mathematician Dr. Dirk-Andre Deckert, published their new “many interacting worlds” (MIW) theory in the journal Physical Review X. They posited that other universes are real, exist in vast numbers and exert influence on each other.
“The idea of parallel universes in quantum mechanics has been around since 1957,” Wiseman said in a statement. “In the well-known ‘Many-Worlds Interpretation’, each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese.”
“But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all,” he added. “On this score, our “Many Interacting Worlds” approach is completely different, as its name implies.”
There are three main points to the MIW theory, according to the Griffith statement. First, that the universe we live in is just one of an unknown“gigantic” number of worlds, some of which are“almost identical to ours,” but most are “very different.” Second, all of the worlds are “equally real,” existing continuously through time with precisely defined properties.Third, quantum phenomena arise from “a universal force of repulsion between ‘nearby’ (i.e. similar) worlds, which tends to make them more dissimilar.”
“All quantum effects arise from, and only from, the interaction between worlds,“ the physicists explained in their abstract.
Hall said the radical new theory may even create the extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds.
“The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics,” he said in the statement. “In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton’s theory nor quantum theory. We also believe that, in providing a new mental picture of quantum effects, it will be useful in planning experiments to test and exploit quantum phenomena.”
American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” And the MIW group admits that their theory is a bit out there.
“Any explanation of quantum phenomena is going to be weird, and standard quantum mechanics does not really offer any explanation at all ‒ it just makes predictions for laboratory experiments,” Wiseman told the Huffington Post in an email. “Our new explanation… is that there are ordinary [non-quantum] parallel worlds which interact in a particular and subtle way.”
Motherboard asked if the theory suggests that humans might someday be able to interact with other universes.
“It’s not part of our theory,” Wiseman replied. “But the idea of [human] interactions with other universes is no longer pure fantasy.”
Others in the quantum mechanics field ranged from skepticism to excitement, Huffington Post reported, noting there is no consensus on whether “many interacting worlds” exist or interact.
“There are some who are completely happy with their own interpretations of QM, and we are unlikely to change their minds,” Wiseman said in his email. “But I think there are many who are not happy with any of the current interpretations, and it is those who will probably be most interested in ours. I hope some will be interested enough to start working on it soon, because there are so many questions to answer.”
This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News with permission or license.
[h=1]New quantum mechanics theory says parallel universes exist, interact[/h] 2014/11/04 5 Comments 2,133 Views
To the average person, quantum mechanics is the convoluted, science fiction-y branch of physics. A radical new theory plays into that, proposing that parallel universes exist and interact with each other ‒ and that scientists may be able to test for them.
Prof. Howard Wiseman, a physicist at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, along with his collaborators Dr. Michael Hall, also of Griffith University, and University of California, Davis mathematician Dr. Dirk-Andre Deckert, published their new “many interacting worlds” (MIW) theory in the journal Physical Review X. They posited that other universes are real, exist in vast numbers and exert influence on each other.
“The idea of parallel universes in quantum mechanics has been around since 1957,” Wiseman said in a statement. “In the well-known ‘Many-Worlds Interpretation’, each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese.”
“But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all,” he added. “On this score, our “Many Interacting Worlds” approach is completely different, as its name implies.”
There are three main points to the MIW theory, according to the Griffith statement. First, that the universe we live in is just one of an unknown“gigantic” number of worlds, some of which are“almost identical to ours,” but most are “very different.” Second, all of the worlds are “equally real,” existing continuously through time with precisely defined properties.Third, quantum phenomena arise from “a universal force of repulsion between ‘nearby’ (i.e. similar) worlds, which tends to make them more dissimilar.”
“All quantum effects arise from, and only from, the interaction between worlds,“ the physicists explained in their abstract.
Hall said the radical new theory may even create the extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds.
“The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics,” he said in the statement. “In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton’s theory nor quantum theory. We also believe that, in providing a new mental picture of quantum effects, it will be useful in planning experiments to test and exploit quantum phenomena.”
American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” And the MIW group admits that their theory is a bit out there.
“Any explanation of quantum phenomena is going to be weird, and standard quantum mechanics does not really offer any explanation at all ‒ it just makes predictions for laboratory experiments,” Wiseman told the Huffington Post in an email. “Our new explanation… is that there are ordinary [non-quantum] parallel worlds which interact in a particular and subtle way.”
Motherboard asked if the theory suggests that humans might someday be able to interact with other universes.
“It’s not part of our theory,” Wiseman replied. “But the idea of [human] interactions with other universes is no longer pure fantasy.”
Others in the quantum mechanics field ranged from skepticism to excitement, Huffington Post reported, noting there is no consensus on whether “many interacting worlds” exist or interact.
“There are some who are completely happy with their own interpretations of QM, and we are unlikely to change their minds,” Wiseman said in his email. “But I think there are many who are not happy with any of the current interpretations, and it is those who will probably be most interested in ours. I hope some will be interested enough to start working on it soon, because there are so many questions to answer.”
This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News with permission or license.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Feminist marxist Obama does not want women opting to stay at home to raise kids
he wants kids raised by the state and women at work raising taxes for the bloated government which needs trillions of dollars for its illegal wars and domestic spying programmes
[video=youtube;ksHIlbIWhgQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksHIlbIWhgQ[/video]
he wants kids raised by the state and women at work raising taxes for the bloated government which needs trillions of dollars for its illegal wars and domestic spying programmes
[video=youtube;ksHIlbIWhgQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksHIlbIWhgQ[/video]
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
[video=youtube;0jHsq36_NTU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU[/video]
[video=youtube;C4V-ooITrws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws
Here is part 2 of the BBC programme i posted above. Bizarrely since i posted that the BBC has decided to block part 1 through 'copyright' but the rest is available so here is part 2
[video=youtube;poib0pFRUoM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poib0pFRUoM&list=PL2D165CE48680587B&index= 2[/video]
[video=youtube;C4V-ooITrws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws
Here is part 2 of the BBC programme i posted above. Bizarrely since i posted that the BBC has decided to block part 1 through 'copyright' but the rest is available so here is part 2
[video=youtube;poib0pFRUoM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poib0pFRUoM&list=PL2D165CE48680587B&index= 2[/video]
Last edited:
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Moral Relatavism and Satanism
Firstly lets demystify the word 'satanism' before the left brain dominant people get all upset about the discussion taking a metaphysical turn
In the occult there are different views of what 'satanism' is. But for the purpose of this particular post i am going to use the word 'devil' or 'satan' to mean anything that roots us into the concrete world of the 5 senses and prevents connection with the spirit.
So for example marxism is strongly anti-religious and calls itself a 'materialist' ideology. The aim of the marxists is to ultimately destroy christianity and the modern atheist movement is one wing of marxism.
However science is breaking new ground regarding the nature of reality and the possibilities are still open that as the mystics have always told us our body is merely a vehicle for consciousness which exists with or without the 'physical' body. The body is simply an avatar through which consciousness can experience this holographic reality. But anyway leaving that aside...
Satanism is a rejection of spirit. If spirit is the ineffable, the intangible, that beyond the world of matter then satanism is about rooting people down in the physical, carnal and animal level of being.
This is why there is always such a strong sexual element to satanism because it wants to believe that we are no better than animals. Of course animals like monkeys and wolves live in packs and there is a hierarchy where the others submit to an alpha male and female.
This is the mindset of the satanist. They believe in a nietzchian superman who rules over everyone else through their 'will to power' and this behaviour can be seen in occult groups up and down the country as people vie to be the baddest animal in the pit.
There are two new branches that then by default spring forth from this mentality tree. If the trunk core of your mindset is that the only thing that matters is to rise to power and to dominate others then there are two major implications for this.
First of all there is a moral implication whereby any sense of fairplay becomes discarded because doing the right thing becomes subserviant to the prime directive which is gaining dominance and superiority. This effectively means that the law of the jungle applies and that any deceitful, cunning or cruel behaviour is justified to acheive the end of dominance.
The second major implication of this mentality is nihilism because nothing else matters in a game where power is the sole focus. This mentality then brings a CYNICISM because the person acting only through competition sees all human behaviour through the same lens; in effect they believe that everyone is playing the same game as themselves. They cannot believe that someone would do something selfless for another and they look always for an alterior motive.
Needless to say this mentality breeds a culture of suspicion and manipulation
It should be fairly onbvious by now to any reader that the people this mentality appeals to the most are PSYCHOPATHS who feel no guilt or remorse and who can lie with conviction in order to rise and gain more influence.
Satanism is a philosophical justification for playing a game of self advancement regardless of the cost to others; it is the creed of the psychopath
Anyone who has been following the news will have seen the story of the banker in hong kong who recently butchered two women in his flat in a scene reminiscent of the novel and film 'american psycho'. Of course to myself and some of the other posters on this forum who have been ringing the alarm bell about the bankers this is no suprise to hear of such things nor is it a suprise to hear about the rash of banker 'suicides' as the system tries to cover it tracks involving for example one banker shooting himself repeatedly in the head with a nail gun (interesting way to commit 'suicide').
A psychopath wants to gain power and it will seek institutions and organisations through whcih it may rise and corporations and the financial sector offer them the perfect playground where their heartlessness is actually rewarded. In fact an FBI criminal profiler profiled the model of the modern corporation and declared it to be psychopathic because like a human psycopath it lacks the mechanism whereby it can take into account the externalities of its actions such as human suffering or damage to the enviornment; of course the truth is always the first victim of the psychopath who must lie to mask their true game which is repulsive to humans who operate from their heart
The psychopath understands from a young age that they are different from the society around them. If they come from a poor background they are likely to end up in jail but if they come from a well-to-do background they are likely to achieve highly and gain a powerful position in society from where they can cause maximum damage.
Moral relatavism allows an obfuscation of what the human heart naturally knows to be abhorent. Humans know instinctively that to rob and kill is wrong and that is natural law.
The psychopath has no recognition or respect for natural law and creates its own moral justifications for its actions deeming the moral restraint of regular people to be a 'weakness'
Psychopaths recognise other psychopaths and they tend to be drawn to the same organisations so over time they cluster at the top of these organisations which then wreak havoc on society. If people think the hong kong banker is an anomoly they should think again; potential brokers and traders are given psychometric testing to ensure they have no empathy and are better able to exploit the public and extract profit from them. This then leads to the first problem mentioned above where morality dissapears in order to pursue the goal of power which is also expressed as the pursuit of profit. An example of this in action would be the deceitful behaviours within ENRON where the public were being fleeced like sheep by ammoral psychopaths
Humans have always had clubs where they tend to mix with people of the same socio-economic grouping as themselves; an exclusive occult club was portrayed in kubricks film 'eyes wide shut'; another psychopath club is shown in the gorno horror film 'the hostel'
One such club that has been around a long time and offers its members an opportunity for networking and greater social influence is freemasonry. Freemasonry has its own evaluation method like corporate psychometric testing, in that it assesses its members though a series of degrees representing a number of different things for example the 360 degree circulation of the sun and the 33 degrees or vertebra of the human spine
Freemasonry has been implicated in various revolutionary movements such as the french revolution which led to the 'terror' aftewards as people were butchered and the bolshevik revolution after which many millions were butchered
Freemasonry uses at its core qabalism. The flipside of the qabalistic tree of life is the qliphotic realm of shells and husks and indeed the psychopath devoid of connection to spirit is indeed a shell of a human
Psychopaths gravitate towards these occult groups which not only develop a pack dynamic based around the most cunning and ruthless alpha initiate but they also thrive off the justifications these groups give for the games they want to play with society
Psychopaths seem to despise human for their connection to spirit and it becomes almost an obsession of the dark occultists to try and crush the human spirit and dismember people from their spirit source
The psychopathic control network that has embedded itself at the top of human society in all the major institutions and most of the secret societies seeks to create a world in its image. This is a vision of a matarialist world full of competition, lustful sexual dominance of all people and gratuitous fear inducing violence designed to shut down the ratonal mind and keep people in their left brain which is responsible for our sense of self; fear increases our sense of self as a seperate being by reinforcing a sense of otherness to the object of our fear
The right hemisphere of our brain is responsible for unifed feelings of oneness and of creative and intutive thought and insight; this represents when combined with our logical left brain a powerful faculty that empowers us to not blindly follow authority and to realise our potential as people
Satanists might claim that is their nietzchean desire but if the perceived 'potential' of an individual is to control other individuals then that is a problem for society
The black magician Aleister Crolwey said 'do as thou wilt' to his followers. Apologists for his philosophy say that he says every human being is a star that has its own trajectory that is intended for it in life and that a person should live out that intention but what Crowley is really implying is that the trajectory of somepeople is to dominate and the trajectory of others is to be dominated; his creed is that of the predator
This is clearly an anti-democratic view
Plato who has had a large effect on occult societies wrote a piece called 'the republic' in which he said the ideal society should be run by a small elite of what he called 'philosopher-kings'. This is the vision that the psychopathic, satanists have for our society.
These satanists use as their symbol the pyramid which represents centralised power with themselves at the top of the pyramid ruling over society. They see themselves as the high priests of matter
We are entering the astrological age of aquarius where knowledge will flow freely to people like water watering the parched earth of their minds creating a new enlightenment. If people are empowered by new knowledge they will not stand to be ruled anymore by the psychopathic control network.
The psychopathic control network knows this is going to happen and marx outlined a revolutionary process in his writings. The psychopathic control system recognises that in order to maintain control over the general populace it must impose a new system which can hold human consciousness in a stranglehold.
Orwell learned about this plan while working in the BBC and he wrote a book warning the public of this threat to their liberty. The plan to create a big brother state is now well underway.
The satanist, marxist vision for the world is one where power is concentrated in the hands of a handful of people (the occult psychopaths) and as we all know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In order to transition us to this new world order they are systematically destroying all vestiges of the old order.
This however offers an informed public the opportunity to forge for itself its own new order where the public are enlightened and empowered and able to have a direct say in the running of their communities at every level.
if we aquiesce to a centralised global government it will use the latest cutting edge technology to keep us locked in a technocratic surveillance prison where free-thought will be seen as a dangerous and subversive thing requiring execution
Put simply we are at a crossroads
Firstly lets demystify the word 'satanism' before the left brain dominant people get all upset about the discussion taking a metaphysical turn
In the occult there are different views of what 'satanism' is. But for the purpose of this particular post i am going to use the word 'devil' or 'satan' to mean anything that roots us into the concrete world of the 5 senses and prevents connection with the spirit.
So for example marxism is strongly anti-religious and calls itself a 'materialist' ideology. The aim of the marxists is to ultimately destroy christianity and the modern atheist movement is one wing of marxism.
However science is breaking new ground regarding the nature of reality and the possibilities are still open that as the mystics have always told us our body is merely a vehicle for consciousness which exists with or without the 'physical' body. The body is simply an avatar through which consciousness can experience this holographic reality. But anyway leaving that aside...
Satanism is a rejection of spirit. If spirit is the ineffable, the intangible, that beyond the world of matter then satanism is about rooting people down in the physical, carnal and animal level of being.
This is why there is always such a strong sexual element to satanism because it wants to believe that we are no better than animals. Of course animals like monkeys and wolves live in packs and there is a hierarchy where the others submit to an alpha male and female.
This is the mindset of the satanist. They believe in a nietzchian superman who rules over everyone else through their 'will to power' and this behaviour can be seen in occult groups up and down the country as people vie to be the baddest animal in the pit.
There are two new branches that then by default spring forth from this mentality tree. If the trunk core of your mindset is that the only thing that matters is to rise to power and to dominate others then there are two major implications for this.
First of all there is a moral implication whereby any sense of fairplay becomes discarded because doing the right thing becomes subserviant to the prime directive which is gaining dominance and superiority. This effectively means that the law of the jungle applies and that any deceitful, cunning or cruel behaviour is justified to acheive the end of dominance.
The second major implication of this mentality is nihilism because nothing else matters in a game where power is the sole focus. This mentality then brings a CYNICISM because the person acting only through competition sees all human behaviour through the same lens; in effect they believe that everyone is playing the same game as themselves. They cannot believe that someone would do something selfless for another and they look always for an alterior motive.
Needless to say this mentality breeds a culture of suspicion and manipulation
It should be fairly onbvious by now to any reader that the people this mentality appeals to the most are PSYCHOPATHS who feel no guilt or remorse and who can lie with conviction in order to rise and gain more influence.
Satanism is a philosophical justification for playing a game of self advancement regardless of the cost to others; it is the creed of the psychopath
Anyone who has been following the news will have seen the story of the banker in hong kong who recently butchered two women in his flat in a scene reminiscent of the novel and film 'american psycho'. Of course to myself and some of the other posters on this forum who have been ringing the alarm bell about the bankers this is no suprise to hear of such things nor is it a suprise to hear about the rash of banker 'suicides' as the system tries to cover it tracks involving for example one banker shooting himself repeatedly in the head with a nail gun (interesting way to commit 'suicide').
A psychopath wants to gain power and it will seek institutions and organisations through whcih it may rise and corporations and the financial sector offer them the perfect playground where their heartlessness is actually rewarded. In fact an FBI criminal profiler profiled the model of the modern corporation and declared it to be psychopathic because like a human psycopath it lacks the mechanism whereby it can take into account the externalities of its actions such as human suffering or damage to the enviornment; of course the truth is always the first victim of the psychopath who must lie to mask their true game which is repulsive to humans who operate from their heart
The psychopath understands from a young age that they are different from the society around them. If they come from a poor background they are likely to end up in jail but if they come from a well-to-do background they are likely to achieve highly and gain a powerful position in society from where they can cause maximum damage.
Moral relatavism allows an obfuscation of what the human heart naturally knows to be abhorent. Humans know instinctively that to rob and kill is wrong and that is natural law.
The psychopath has no recognition or respect for natural law and creates its own moral justifications for its actions deeming the moral restraint of regular people to be a 'weakness'
Psychopaths recognise other psychopaths and they tend to be drawn to the same organisations so over time they cluster at the top of these organisations which then wreak havoc on society. If people think the hong kong banker is an anomoly they should think again; potential brokers and traders are given psychometric testing to ensure they have no empathy and are better able to exploit the public and extract profit from them. This then leads to the first problem mentioned above where morality dissapears in order to pursue the goal of power which is also expressed as the pursuit of profit. An example of this in action would be the deceitful behaviours within ENRON where the public were being fleeced like sheep by ammoral psychopaths
Humans have always had clubs where they tend to mix with people of the same socio-economic grouping as themselves; an exclusive occult club was portrayed in kubricks film 'eyes wide shut'; another psychopath club is shown in the gorno horror film 'the hostel'
One such club that has been around a long time and offers its members an opportunity for networking and greater social influence is freemasonry. Freemasonry has its own evaluation method like corporate psychometric testing, in that it assesses its members though a series of degrees representing a number of different things for example the 360 degree circulation of the sun and the 33 degrees or vertebra of the human spine
Freemasonry has been implicated in various revolutionary movements such as the french revolution which led to the 'terror' aftewards as people were butchered and the bolshevik revolution after which many millions were butchered
Freemasonry uses at its core qabalism. The flipside of the qabalistic tree of life is the qliphotic realm of shells and husks and indeed the psychopath devoid of connection to spirit is indeed a shell of a human
Psychopaths gravitate towards these occult groups which not only develop a pack dynamic based around the most cunning and ruthless alpha initiate but they also thrive off the justifications these groups give for the games they want to play with society
Psychopaths seem to despise human for their connection to spirit and it becomes almost an obsession of the dark occultists to try and crush the human spirit and dismember people from their spirit source
The psychopathic control network that has embedded itself at the top of human society in all the major institutions and most of the secret societies seeks to create a world in its image. This is a vision of a matarialist world full of competition, lustful sexual dominance of all people and gratuitous fear inducing violence designed to shut down the ratonal mind and keep people in their left brain which is responsible for our sense of self; fear increases our sense of self as a seperate being by reinforcing a sense of otherness to the object of our fear
The right hemisphere of our brain is responsible for unifed feelings of oneness and of creative and intutive thought and insight; this represents when combined with our logical left brain a powerful faculty that empowers us to not blindly follow authority and to realise our potential as people
Satanists might claim that is their nietzchean desire but if the perceived 'potential' of an individual is to control other individuals then that is a problem for society
The black magician Aleister Crolwey said 'do as thou wilt' to his followers. Apologists for his philosophy say that he says every human being is a star that has its own trajectory that is intended for it in life and that a person should live out that intention but what Crowley is really implying is that the trajectory of somepeople is to dominate and the trajectory of others is to be dominated; his creed is that of the predator
This is clearly an anti-democratic view
Plato who has had a large effect on occult societies wrote a piece called 'the republic' in which he said the ideal society should be run by a small elite of what he called 'philosopher-kings'. This is the vision that the psychopathic, satanists have for our society.
These satanists use as their symbol the pyramid which represents centralised power with themselves at the top of the pyramid ruling over society. They see themselves as the high priests of matter
We are entering the astrological age of aquarius where knowledge will flow freely to people like water watering the parched earth of their minds creating a new enlightenment. If people are empowered by new knowledge they will not stand to be ruled anymore by the psychopathic control network.
The psychopathic control network knows this is going to happen and marx outlined a revolutionary process in his writings. The psychopathic control system recognises that in order to maintain control over the general populace it must impose a new system which can hold human consciousness in a stranglehold.
Orwell learned about this plan while working in the BBC and he wrote a book warning the public of this threat to their liberty. The plan to create a big brother state is now well underway.
The satanist, marxist vision for the world is one where power is concentrated in the hands of a handful of people (the occult psychopaths) and as we all know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In order to transition us to this new world order they are systematically destroying all vestiges of the old order.
This however offers an informed public the opportunity to forge for itself its own new order where the public are enlightened and empowered and able to have a direct say in the running of their communities at every level.
if we aquiesce to a centralised global government it will use the latest cutting edge technology to keep us locked in a technocratic surveillance prison where free-thought will be seen as a dangerous and subversive thing requiring execution
Put simply we are at a crossroads
Last edited:
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreig...84-percent-of-US-Jews-favor-Iran-nuclear-deal
[h=1]Going against Netanyahu, 84 percent of US Jews favor Iran nuclear deal[/h] [h=2]Strong Jewish support for an Iran nuclear deal was a surprise finding of a poll of American Jews who voted Tuesday. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned against any deal that leaves Iran with an enrichment program.
[/h] Washington — As President Obama presses to reach an accord with Iran on its nuclear program by the end of the month, he can count on strong support from what might seem like an unlikely segment of the population: American Jews.
Jewish backing of the administration’s efforts to strike a deal suggests that American Jews aren’t heeding the alarms being sounded in Israel by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He warns that any deal that leaves Iran with an enrichment program constitutes a mortal danger to Israel.
Strong Jewish support for a nuclear deal that limits, but doesn’t completely stop, Iran’s uranium enrichment abilities was a surprise finding of a telephone poll of Jewish voters who took part in Tuesday’s midterm elections. The poll, commissioned by J Street – the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” Washington lobbying organization – also found strong support for an active US role in efforts to forge Arab-Israeli peace. At the same time, the survey found strong support for Israel’s handling of Operation Protective Edge, this summer’s military operation against Hamas in Gaza that resulted in strong international criticism of Israel over the heavy civilian toll.
Recommended: How much do you know about Iran? Take our quiz to find out.
But it was the findings on Iran and the implication that American Jews would be comfortable with Iran retaining a nuclear program that stood out.
Test your knowledge How much do you know about Iran? Take our quiz to find out.
Infographic Nuclear Iran: How quickly could Iran make the bomb?
Photos of the Day Photos of the Day 11/06
The survey found that 84 percent of American Jews would favor either strongly or somewhat a deal with Iran that would alleviate tough sanctions on the Iranian economy in exchange for Iran’s agreement to limit its nuclear program to civilian purposes and accept inspectors at its nuclear facilities.
The United States and five other world powers face a Nov. 24 deadline for reaching a deal with Iran. Mr. Obama said Wednesday that the nations in talks with Iran have presented Tehran with a “framework” that would “allow them to meet their peaceful energy needs,” but he said he wasn’t sure if a deal could be reached by the approaching deadline.
The strong Jewish backing for a deal actually mirrors the level of support for a diplomatic solution with Iran among Americans in general, say political analysts at J Street.
“The American public generally is supportive of giving diplomacy time to work,” says Dylan Williams, J Street director of government affairs. “I don’t think Jewish Americans are different from where the general American population is on this.”
American Jews “have accepted that some level of uranium enrichment will be part of a viable deal,” Mr. Williams says. Now, he adds, the key to acceptance of a deal – by Jews and the general public alike – will be “a robust verification and monitoring regime” that blocks Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon.
The survey registered a strong sense of connection to Mr. Netanyahu among American Jews, even though its results suggest they don’t support his policies. Asked to gauge on a scale of 1 to 100 their feelings of warmth toward various leaders and personalities, respondents gave Netanyahu a 61 – higher than Obama (49) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (57).
“The prime minister is personally popular with American Jews,” says Jessica Rosenblum, J Street communications director. “The difference here is that they have deep concerns about the policies he’s pursuing.”
The survey also found that American Jews continue to support by a wide margin Democrats over Republicans. This is despite repeated predictions over recent years from conservative Jewish pundits that US Jews – because of Obama’s push for an Israeli-Palestinian two-state settlement, his overtures to Iran, and his frosty relations with Netanyahu – are on the verge of a wholesale shift to the Republican column.
“It’s comical how every two years the small segment of our community that leans conservative says, ‘This is the year that Jewish-Americans will vote for more hawkish politicians and policies,’ and it never happens,” Williams says.
In Tuesday’s elections, American Jews voted for Democrats over Republicans by a decisive margin of 69 to 28 percent.
And on that “feelings of warmth” gauge, they gave the Democratic Party a 51. The Republican Party got a 28
[h=1]Going against Netanyahu, 84 percent of US Jews favor Iran nuclear deal[/h] [h=2]Strong Jewish support for an Iran nuclear deal was a surprise finding of a poll of American Jews who voted Tuesday. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned against any deal that leaves Iran with an enrichment program.
[/h] Washington — As President Obama presses to reach an accord with Iran on its nuclear program by the end of the month, he can count on strong support from what might seem like an unlikely segment of the population: American Jews.
Jewish backing of the administration’s efforts to strike a deal suggests that American Jews aren’t heeding the alarms being sounded in Israel by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He warns that any deal that leaves Iran with an enrichment program constitutes a mortal danger to Israel.
Strong Jewish support for a nuclear deal that limits, but doesn’t completely stop, Iran’s uranium enrichment abilities was a surprise finding of a telephone poll of Jewish voters who took part in Tuesday’s midterm elections. The poll, commissioned by J Street – the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” Washington lobbying organization – also found strong support for an active US role in efforts to forge Arab-Israeli peace. At the same time, the survey found strong support for Israel’s handling of Operation Protective Edge, this summer’s military operation against Hamas in Gaza that resulted in strong international criticism of Israel over the heavy civilian toll.
Recommended: How much do you know about Iran? Take our quiz to find out.
But it was the findings on Iran and the implication that American Jews would be comfortable with Iran retaining a nuclear program that stood out.
Test your knowledge How much do you know about Iran? Take our quiz to find out.
Infographic Nuclear Iran: How quickly could Iran make the bomb?
Photos of the Day Photos of the Day 11/06
The survey found that 84 percent of American Jews would favor either strongly or somewhat a deal with Iran that would alleviate tough sanctions on the Iranian economy in exchange for Iran’s agreement to limit its nuclear program to civilian purposes and accept inspectors at its nuclear facilities.
The United States and five other world powers face a Nov. 24 deadline for reaching a deal with Iran. Mr. Obama said Wednesday that the nations in talks with Iran have presented Tehran with a “framework” that would “allow them to meet their peaceful energy needs,” but he said he wasn’t sure if a deal could be reached by the approaching deadline.
The strong Jewish backing for a deal actually mirrors the level of support for a diplomatic solution with Iran among Americans in general, say political analysts at J Street.
“The American public generally is supportive of giving diplomacy time to work,” says Dylan Williams, J Street director of government affairs. “I don’t think Jewish Americans are different from where the general American population is on this.”
American Jews “have accepted that some level of uranium enrichment will be part of a viable deal,” Mr. Williams says. Now, he adds, the key to acceptance of a deal – by Jews and the general public alike – will be “a robust verification and monitoring regime” that blocks Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon.
The survey registered a strong sense of connection to Mr. Netanyahu among American Jews, even though its results suggest they don’t support his policies. Asked to gauge on a scale of 1 to 100 their feelings of warmth toward various leaders and personalities, respondents gave Netanyahu a 61 – higher than Obama (49) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (57).
“The prime minister is personally popular with American Jews,” says Jessica Rosenblum, J Street communications director. “The difference here is that they have deep concerns about the policies he’s pursuing.”
The survey also found that American Jews continue to support by a wide margin Democrats over Republicans. This is despite repeated predictions over recent years from conservative Jewish pundits that US Jews – because of Obama’s push for an Israeli-Palestinian two-state settlement, his overtures to Iran, and his frosty relations with Netanyahu – are on the verge of a wholesale shift to the Republican column.
“It’s comical how every two years the small segment of our community that leans conservative says, ‘This is the year that Jewish-Americans will vote for more hawkish politicians and policies,’ and it never happens,” Williams says.
In Tuesday’s elections, American Jews voted for Democrats over Republicans by a decisive margin of 69 to 28 percent.
And on that “feelings of warmth” gauge, they gave the Democratic Party a 51. The Republican Party got a 28
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/11213510/Destroying-online-freedom-in-the-name-of-counter-terrorism-will-make-the-world-a-more-dangerous-place.html
[h=1]Destroying online freedom in the name of counter-terrorism will make the world a more dangerous place[/h] [h=2]It is not terrorists who threaten that future of the internet, but our intelligence and security services[/h]
Photo: Reuters
By Carly Nyst
1:52PM GMT 06 Nov 2014
171 Comments
Robert Hannigan, the new head of GCHQ, announced his arrival this week with a call for “greater co-operation” with security forces by tech companies. Hannigan’s article in the Financial Times illustrated vividly the destructive ideology that has driven the infiltration by the British and American intelligence agencies into every aspects of the digital realm – an unquestioning faith in the righteous purpose of intelligence agencies, a complete mischaracterisation of the nature of the internet and its value, and a frightening belief that companies stand only on the side of the State, rather than in the interests of the privacy and security of their users.
Hannigan’s decision to enter the debate in this way is extraordinary. In a parliamentary democracy based on the Rule of Law, it is not appropriate for civil servants to speak for government or set policy.
His rhetoric is all the more disappointing for being the first public response by GCHQ to the serious challenges to the lawfulness of its activities since the first of the Snowden revelations in summer 2013.
Such activities include, of course, mass surveillance of all communications in and out of the British Isles, warrantless access to the NSA’s databases, the hacking of user devices and even the infiltration of Yahoo webcam chats.
Over the past year, in courts and inquiries and the media, GCHQ has refused to confirm or deny any of its wrongdoings, and the Government has refused to engage in any constructive conversation on how to prevent the overreach of intelligence agencies in the digital age.
Rather than acknowledge the very real misgivings that the British people have in the accountability of the services charged with protecting their security, Hannigan has used his public platform as an exercise in ex-post justification, and to launch the case for expanded powers. The audacity of such an attack, even as GCHQ is under the review of the Intelligence Services Committee, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, is astounding.
In any event, Hannigan’s argument begins from the fundamentally flawed premise that the internet is a tool of terror, rather than an instrument for public good – the greatest tool for education, expression, connection and innovation humankind has ever seen. The emancipatory power of the internet lies in its free and democratic nature.
Just as the trade off for a truly democratic society is that dissent, insecurity and even hatred cannot be stamped out before they materialise, so too a truly open, democratised internet cannot be sanitised against terror without undermining the very qualities that make it so important to our lives. This is exactly what mass surveillance of the internet is aimed at, and as a result it debases the rights to privacy and free expression that we need for flourishing democracies.
Hannigan asserts that the right to privacy should not be a reason for postponing urgent and difficult decisions. In doing so he in fact makes the case for strong opposition by the private sector: when the State sees human rights as inconvenient obstacles to greater control, those who are in a position to oppose the encroachment of State power must take a stand. Many technology companies understand this – they also grew up on the internet and have been beneficiaries of its democratic nature.
Technology companies understand that progress and innovation and development come not through secretive pacts and sanitised products, but through disruption, challenging ideas and participation.
Hannigan is right that technology companies are not neutral conduits of data sitting outside politics. They have the power to protect their users’ privacy, to protect the free and open nature of the internet and demand transparent laws and due process in exchange for their co-operation with States. The internet is, and can continue to be, the command and control networks of choice for every person, around the world. It is not terrorists who threaten that future of the internet, but our intelligence and security services.
Carly Nyst is Legal Director of Privacy International a member of the Don't Spy On Us coalition.
[h=1]Destroying online freedom in the name of counter-terrorism will make the world a more dangerous place[/h] [h=2]It is not terrorists who threaten that future of the internet, but our intelligence and security services[/h]
By Carly Nyst
1:52PM GMT 06 Nov 2014
Robert Hannigan, the new head of GCHQ, announced his arrival this week with a call for “greater co-operation” with security forces by tech companies. Hannigan’s article in the Financial Times illustrated vividly the destructive ideology that has driven the infiltration by the British and American intelligence agencies into every aspects of the digital realm – an unquestioning faith in the righteous purpose of intelligence agencies, a complete mischaracterisation of the nature of the internet and its value, and a frightening belief that companies stand only on the side of the State, rather than in the interests of the privacy and security of their users.
Hannigan’s decision to enter the debate in this way is extraordinary. In a parliamentary democracy based on the Rule of Law, it is not appropriate for civil servants to speak for government or set policy.
His rhetoric is all the more disappointing for being the first public response by GCHQ to the serious challenges to the lawfulness of its activities since the first of the Snowden revelations in summer 2013.
Such activities include, of course, mass surveillance of all communications in and out of the British Isles, warrantless access to the NSA’s databases, the hacking of user devices and even the infiltration of Yahoo webcam chats.
Over the past year, in courts and inquiries and the media, GCHQ has refused to confirm or deny any of its wrongdoings, and the Government has refused to engage in any constructive conversation on how to prevent the overreach of intelligence agencies in the digital age.
Rather than acknowledge the very real misgivings that the British people have in the accountability of the services charged with protecting their security, Hannigan has used his public platform as an exercise in ex-post justification, and to launch the case for expanded powers. The audacity of such an attack, even as GCHQ is under the review of the Intelligence Services Committee, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, is astounding.
In any event, Hannigan’s argument begins from the fundamentally flawed premise that the internet is a tool of terror, rather than an instrument for public good – the greatest tool for education, expression, connection and innovation humankind has ever seen. The emancipatory power of the internet lies in its free and democratic nature.
Just as the trade off for a truly democratic society is that dissent, insecurity and even hatred cannot be stamped out before they materialise, so too a truly open, democratised internet cannot be sanitised against terror without undermining the very qualities that make it so important to our lives. This is exactly what mass surveillance of the internet is aimed at, and as a result it debases the rights to privacy and free expression that we need for flourishing democracies.
Hannigan asserts that the right to privacy should not be a reason for postponing urgent and difficult decisions. In doing so he in fact makes the case for strong opposition by the private sector: when the State sees human rights as inconvenient obstacles to greater control, those who are in a position to oppose the encroachment of State power must take a stand. Many technology companies understand this – they also grew up on the internet and have been beneficiaries of its democratic nature.
Technology companies understand that progress and innovation and development come not through secretive pacts and sanitised products, but through disruption, challenging ideas and participation.
Hannigan is right that technology companies are not neutral conduits of data sitting outside politics. They have the power to protect their users’ privacy, to protect the free and open nature of the internet and demand transparent laws and due process in exchange for their co-operation with States. The internet is, and can continue to be, the command and control networks of choice for every person, around the world. It is not terrorists who threaten that future of the internet, but our intelligence and security services.
Carly Nyst is Legal Director of Privacy International a member of the Don't Spy On Us coalition.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rt22Ta5GtM
[h=1]Congressman Scott Guilty of Treason Serves Criminal Banks/Israel Not The People/Constitution[/h]
[video=youtube;3rt22Ta5GtM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rt22Ta5GtM[/video]
[h=1]Congressman Scott Guilty of Treason Serves Criminal Banks/Israel Not The People/Constitution[/h]
[video=youtube;3rt22Ta5GtM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rt22Ta5GtM[/video]
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-leading-gunpowder-plot-democracy-eu-us-trade
[h=1]The British government is leading a gunpowder plot against democracy[/h] This bill of corporate rights threatens to blow the sovereignty of parliament unless it can be stopped
Illustration by Sébastien Thibault
On this day a year ago, I was in despair. A dark cloud was rising over the Atlantic, threatening to blot out some of the freedoms our ancestors lost their lives to secure. The ability of parliaments on both sides of the ocean to legislate on behalf of their people was at risk from an astonishing treaty that would grant corporations special powers to sue governments. I could not see a way of stopping it.
Almost no one had heard of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US, except those who were quietly negotiating it. And I suspected that almost no one ever would. Even the name seemed perfectly designed to repel public interest. I wrote about it for one reason: to be able to tell my children that I had not done nothing.
To my amazement, the article went viral. As a result of the public reaction and the involvement of remarkable campaigners, the European commission and the British government responded. The Stop TTIP petition now carries more than 750,000 signatures; the 38 Degrees petition has 910,000. Last month there were 450 protest actions across 24 member states. The commission was forced to hold a public consultation about the most controversial aspect, and 150,000 people responded. Never let it be said that people cannot engage with complex issues.
Nothing has yet been won. Corporations and governments – led by the UK – are mobilising to thwart this uprising. But their position slips a little every month. When the British minister responsible at the time, Ken Clarke, responded to my first articles, he insisted that “nothing could be more foolish” than making the European negotiating position public, as I’d proposed. But last month the commission was obliged to do just this. It’s beginning to look as if the fight against TTIP could become a historic victory for people against corporate power.
The central problem is what the negotiators call investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The treaty would allow corporations to sue governments before an arbitration panel composed of corporate lawyers, at which other people have no representation, and which is not subject to judicial review.
Already, thanks to the insertion of ISDS into much smaller trade treaties, big business is engaged in an orgy of litigation, whose purpose is to strike down any law that might impinge on its anticipated future profits. The tobacco firm Philip Morris is suing governments in Uruguay and Australia for trying to discourage people from smoking. The oil firm Occidental was awarded $2.3bn in compensation from Ecuador, which terminated the company’s drilling concession in the Amazon after finding that Occidental had broken Ecuadorean law. The Swedish company Vattenfall is suing the German government for shutting down nuclear power. An Australian firm is suing El Salvador’s government for $300m for refusing permission for a goldmine over concerns it would poison the drinking water.
The same mechanism, under TTIP, could be used to prevent UK governments from reversing the privatisation of the railways and the NHS, or from defending public health and the natural world against corporate greed. The corporate lawyers who sit on these panels are beholden only to the companies whose cases they adjudicate, who at other times are their employers.
As one of these people commented: “When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all … Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.”
So outrageous is this arrangement that even the Economist, usually the champion of corporate power and trade treaties, has now come out against it. It calls investor-state dispute settlement “a way to let multinational companies get rich at the expense of ordinary people”.
When David Cameron and the corporate press launched their campaign against the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for president of the European commission, they claimed that he threatened British sovereignty. It was a perfect inversion of reality. Juncker, seeing the way the public debate was going, promised in his manifesto that “I will not sacrifice Europe’s safety, health, social and data protection standards … on the altar of free trade … Nor will I accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU member states is limited by special regimes for investor disputes.” Juncker’s crime was that he had pledged not to give away as much of our sovereignty to corporate lawyers as Cameron and the media barons demanded.
Juncker is now coming under extreme pressure. Last month 14 states wrote to him, privately and without consulting their parliaments, demanding the inclusion of ISDS (the letter was leaked a few days ago). And who is leading this campaign? The British government. It’s hard to get your head around the duplicity involved. While claiming to be so exercised about our sovereignty that it is prepared to leave the EU, our government is secretly insisting that the European commission slaughter our sovereignty on behalf of corporate profits. Cameron is leading a gunpowder plot against democracy.
He and his ministers have failed to answer the howlingly obvious question: what’s wrong with the courts? If corporations want to sue governments, they already have a right to do so, through the courts, like anyone else. It’s not as if, with their vast budgets, they are disadvantaged in this arena. Why should they be allowed to use a separate legal system, to which the rest of us have no access? What happened to the principle of equality before the law?
If our courts are fit to deprive citizens of their liberty, why are they unfit to deprive corporations of anticipated future profits? Let’s not hear another word from the defenders of TTIP until they have answered this question.
It cannot be ducked for much longer. Unlike previous treaties, this one is being dragged by campaigners into the open, where its justifications shrivel on exposure to the light. There’s a tough struggle to come, and the outcome is by no means certain, but my sense is that we will win.
[h=1]The British government is leading a gunpowder plot against democracy[/h] This bill of corporate rights threatens to blow the sovereignty of parliament unless it can be stopped
Email-
- George Monbiot
- The Guardian, Tuesday 4 November 2014 20.16 GMT
- Jump to comments (1171)
- George Monbiot
On this day a year ago, I was in despair. A dark cloud was rising over the Atlantic, threatening to blot out some of the freedoms our ancestors lost their lives to secure. The ability of parliaments on both sides of the ocean to legislate on behalf of their people was at risk from an astonishing treaty that would grant corporations special powers to sue governments. I could not see a way of stopping it.
Almost no one had heard of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US, except those who were quietly negotiating it. And I suspected that almost no one ever would. Even the name seemed perfectly designed to repel public interest. I wrote about it for one reason: to be able to tell my children that I had not done nothing.
To my amazement, the article went viral. As a result of the public reaction and the involvement of remarkable campaigners, the European commission and the British government responded. The Stop TTIP petition now carries more than 750,000 signatures; the 38 Degrees petition has 910,000. Last month there were 450 protest actions across 24 member states. The commission was forced to hold a public consultation about the most controversial aspect, and 150,000 people responded. Never let it be said that people cannot engage with complex issues.
Nothing has yet been won. Corporations and governments – led by the UK – are mobilising to thwart this uprising. But their position slips a little every month. When the British minister responsible at the time, Ken Clarke, responded to my first articles, he insisted that “nothing could be more foolish” than making the European negotiating position public, as I’d proposed. But last month the commission was obliged to do just this. It’s beginning to look as if the fight against TTIP could become a historic victory for people against corporate power.
The central problem is what the negotiators call investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The treaty would allow corporations to sue governments before an arbitration panel composed of corporate lawyers, at which other people have no representation, and which is not subject to judicial review.
Already, thanks to the insertion of ISDS into much smaller trade treaties, big business is engaged in an orgy of litigation, whose purpose is to strike down any law that might impinge on its anticipated future profits. The tobacco firm Philip Morris is suing governments in Uruguay and Australia for trying to discourage people from smoking. The oil firm Occidental was awarded $2.3bn in compensation from Ecuador, which terminated the company’s drilling concession in the Amazon after finding that Occidental had broken Ecuadorean law. The Swedish company Vattenfall is suing the German government for shutting down nuclear power. An Australian firm is suing El Salvador’s government for $300m for refusing permission for a goldmine over concerns it would poison the drinking water.
The same mechanism, under TTIP, could be used to prevent UK governments from reversing the privatisation of the railways and the NHS, or from defending public health and the natural world against corporate greed. The corporate lawyers who sit on these panels are beholden only to the companies whose cases they adjudicate, who at other times are their employers.
As one of these people commented: “When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all … Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.”
So outrageous is this arrangement that even the Economist, usually the champion of corporate power and trade treaties, has now come out against it. It calls investor-state dispute settlement “a way to let multinational companies get rich at the expense of ordinary people”.
When David Cameron and the corporate press launched their campaign against the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for president of the European commission, they claimed that he threatened British sovereignty. It was a perfect inversion of reality. Juncker, seeing the way the public debate was going, promised in his manifesto that “I will not sacrifice Europe’s safety, health, social and data protection standards … on the altar of free trade … Nor will I accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU member states is limited by special regimes for investor disputes.” Juncker’s crime was that he had pledged not to give away as much of our sovereignty to corporate lawyers as Cameron and the media barons demanded.
Juncker is now coming under extreme pressure. Last month 14 states wrote to him, privately and without consulting their parliaments, demanding the inclusion of ISDS (the letter was leaked a few days ago). And who is leading this campaign? The British government. It’s hard to get your head around the duplicity involved. While claiming to be so exercised about our sovereignty that it is prepared to leave the EU, our government is secretly insisting that the European commission slaughter our sovereignty on behalf of corporate profits. Cameron is leading a gunpowder plot against democracy.
He and his ministers have failed to answer the howlingly obvious question: what’s wrong with the courts? If corporations want to sue governments, they already have a right to do so, through the courts, like anyone else. It’s not as if, with their vast budgets, they are disadvantaged in this arena. Why should they be allowed to use a separate legal system, to which the rest of us have no access? What happened to the principle of equality before the law?
If our courts are fit to deprive citizens of their liberty, why are they unfit to deprive corporations of anticipated future profits? Let’s not hear another word from the defenders of TTIP until they have answered this question.
It cannot be ducked for much longer. Unlike previous treaties, this one is being dragged by campaigners into the open, where its justifications shrivel on exposure to the light. There’s a tough struggle to come, and the outcome is by no means certain, but my sense is that we will win.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...s-and-computers-in-next-20-years-9851119.html
[h=1]A third of UK jobs to be replaced by robots and computers in next 20 years[/h]
[h=3]Low-paid, repetitive roles are most at risk, following an established global trend for automated systems to replace human labour
[/h]
James Vincent
10 Nov 2014
Advances in robotics and computing could wipe out as much as a third of all UK jobs over the next 20 years, a new report has claimed.
More than 10 million roles are likely to be replaced by automated systems, with repetitive, lower-paid jobs (those earning less than £30,000 a year) five times more likely to be made obsolete than higher-paid jobs.
Experts said the trends identified in the report were already well under way, with “high risk” jobs identified in “office and administrative support; sales and services; transportation; construction and extraction; and production.”
Many of these professions have already been heavily affected by automated systems, with the report’s authors noting that in London 65 per cent of librarians have lost their jobs since 2001 and almost half of personal assistants and secretaries.
However, researchers also said that 40 per cent of UK jobs were at “low or no risk” – a percentage rising to 51 per cent in London – with ‘safe’ sectors demanding interpersonal skills such as healthcare and education; creative talent; or science and engineering know-how (after all, someone has to build those robots).
Angus Knowles-Cutler, a senior partner at Deloitte, warned that the study could exacerbate income inequality and create “a widening gap between the 'haves’ and 'have nots’”. However, he also added that the UK and London was better placed than most to deal with the changes.
“London has a lot going for it. It is the greatest high skills city in the world,” said Knowles-Cutler
University of Oxford professor Carl Benedikt Frey, who authored the report along with fellow professor Michael Osborne, added: “Skilled cities like London are incubators for new ideas and products. With the right policies, London can be at the front-line in developing the next generation of digital technologies.”
The study builds on work done by Frey and Osborne into automation in the US jobs market in 2013. The pair concluded that in the US around 47 per cent of total employment was at risk.
[h=1]A third of UK jobs to be replaced by robots and computers in next 20 years[/h]
[h=3]Low-paid, repetitive roles are most at risk, following an established global trend for automated systems to replace human labour
[/h]
James Vincent
10 Nov 2014
Advances in robotics and computing could wipe out as much as a third of all UK jobs over the next 20 years, a new report has claimed.
More than 10 million roles are likely to be replaced by automated systems, with repetitive, lower-paid jobs (those earning less than £30,000 a year) five times more likely to be made obsolete than higher-paid jobs.
Experts said the trends identified in the report were already well under way, with “high risk” jobs identified in “office and administrative support; sales and services; transportation; construction and extraction; and production.”
Many of these professions have already been heavily affected by automated systems, with the report’s authors noting that in London 65 per cent of librarians have lost their jobs since 2001 and almost half of personal assistants and secretaries.
However, researchers also said that 40 per cent of UK jobs were at “low or no risk” – a percentage rising to 51 per cent in London – with ‘safe’ sectors demanding interpersonal skills such as healthcare and education; creative talent; or science and engineering know-how (after all, someone has to build those robots).
Angus Knowles-Cutler, a senior partner at Deloitte, warned that the study could exacerbate income inequality and create “a widening gap between the 'haves’ and 'have nots’”. However, he also added that the UK and London was better placed than most to deal with the changes.
“London has a lot going for it. It is the greatest high skills city in the world,” said Knowles-Cutler
University of Oxford professor Carl Benedikt Frey, who authored the report along with fellow professor Michael Osborne, added: “Skilled cities like London are incubators for new ideas and products. With the right policies, London can be at the front-line in developing the next generation of digital technologies.”
The study builds on work done by Frey and Osborne into automation in the US jobs market in 2013. The pair concluded that in the US around 47 per cent of total employment was at risk.
BrokenDaniel
Infraction Bin
- MBTI
- ISFP ESI
- Enneagram
- 4w5 Sx/Sp
I find Anton Lavey to be a big charlatan. Lots of words and hollywoodesque "morbid" glamour, but very little substance behind. Pretty much a rip-off imo.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Yeah i don't know how influential he was although some famous people were said to be associated with him including Sammy Davis Jnr of rat pack fame
The powerful sorcerers stay in the shadows out of sight
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
The state is trying to take control of the internet; maybe it doesn't like its countless crimes being exposed
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7185933/fcc-should-reclassify-internet-as-utility-obama-says
[h=1]Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility[/h]
[video=youtube;uKcjQPVwfDk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcjQPVwfDk[/video]
President Obama has come out in support of reclassifying internet service as a utility, a move that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to enforce more robust regulations and protect net neutrality. "To put these protections in place, I'm asking the FCC to reclassifying internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act," Obama says in a statement this morning. "In plain English, I'm asking [the FCC] to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life."
The decision is still up to the FCC
There's been a growing battle around protecting net neutrality — the principle that all internet traffic, no matter what it is or where it comes from, should be treated equally — ever since the FCC's original protections were struck down in court earlier this year. Those protections were able to be struck down because the commission didn't make the rules in a way that it actually had authority over, so it's been trying to create new rules that it will definitely be able to enforce. It hasn't chosen to use Title II so far, but net neutrality advocates, now including President Obama, have been pushing for its use.
Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.
Obama's support of Title II reclassification comes at a critical time for net neutrality. While the FCC is in the process of making new rules to protect net neutrality, those rules would actually allow internet providers to offer so-called "fast lanes," effectively defeating the purpose of net neutrality in the first place. During a public comment period over the summer, Americans spoke out loudly against the proposal, but it's not yet clear what the commission plans to do in response. FCC chair Tom Wheeler has said that he isn't entirely opposed to Title II, but that's appeared to be only if other methods won't work first.
Netflix might get what it wants under Obama's plan
In a statement outlining what he'd like internet service to look like, Obama highlights four major points: internet providers wouldn't be allowed to block websites offering legal content, they wouldn't be allowed to intentionally slow down or speed up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, and they wouldn't be able to offer paid fast lanes. Obama also asks that the FCC investigate and potentially apply net neutrality rules to the interconnect points that sit between service providers, like Comcast and Verizon, and content providers, like Netflix. That's potentially huge news for Netflix, which has been arguing that this area of the internet should be covered by net neutrality all year.
Obama also asks that the commission apply these rules to mobile internet service. That would be a significant change as well, as mobile service hasn't previously been subject to the same net neutrality rules that wired connections have been. That said, Obama does leave a significant amount of room for exceptions in the wireless space, potentially allowing some amount of throttling so that providers can manage their networks when under heavy use. Notably, his proposal also asks the FCC not to enforce rate regulations on internet service.
There's still the big question of whether the FCC will listen to Obama's recommendation and whether Congress will actually allow it. Obama's support of Title II reclassification may provide the political support that the commission needs to justify such a rule change, but with Republicans wary of regulation taking over the Senate, it's an increasingly risky proposition. The FCC may set the rules, but there's plenty that Congress can do to sway its decisions. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has already tweeted out, "'Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."
"We will incorporate the President’s submission into the record."
Following Obama's announcement, the FCC responded with a statement that doesn't really move the needle — and, in fact, basically says that it'll lump Obama's opinion in with everyone else's. "As an independent regulatory agency we will incorporate the President’s submission into the record of the Open Internet proceeding," chairman Wheeler says. "We welcome comment on it and how it proposes to use Title II of the Communications Act."
Obama is well aware that he doesn't set the policy here, but his statement points out to the commission that this policy change is well supported by the public. "The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately the decision is their's alone," Obama says. "But the public has already commented nearly 4 million times asking that consumers — not the cable company — gets to decide which sites they use."
The Hill reports that Republicans are already moving toward an overhaul of the Communications Act after last week's election, potentially streamlining the rules used to regulate different types of services, like phone, TV, and internet. Exactly what those changes will mean are unclear, but net neutrality advocates are reportedly concerned that it could move toward a deregulation of the communications industry.
In its statement, the FCC also confirms reports that it's been examining taking a "hybrid" approach to net neutrality. It's believed that the commission's hybrid plan would place heavy regulations on interconnect points — making content providers like Netflix happy — while still allowing some degree of fast lanes for consumers.
Ultimately, the FCC just says that it needs more time. While it had hoped to have net neutrality rules in place by the end of the year, it's clearly found that its current plans aren't what people want. It now says that it needs time to determine what legal obstacles would come up should it use a hybrid approach or full Title II reclassification. "The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options," Wheeler writes, "the more it has become plain that there is more work to do."
You can read Obama's full statement below:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7185933/fcc-should-reclassify-internet-as-utility-obama-says
[h=1]Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility[/h]
[video=youtube;uKcjQPVwfDk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcjQPVwfDk[/video]
President Obama has come out in support of reclassifying internet service as a utility, a move that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to enforce more robust regulations and protect net neutrality. "To put these protections in place, I'm asking the FCC to reclassifying internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act," Obama says in a statement this morning. "In plain English, I'm asking [the FCC] to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life."
The decision is still up to the FCC
There's been a growing battle around protecting net neutrality — the principle that all internet traffic, no matter what it is or where it comes from, should be treated equally — ever since the FCC's original protections were struck down in court earlier this year. Those protections were able to be struck down because the commission didn't make the rules in a way that it actually had authority over, so it's been trying to create new rules that it will definitely be able to enforce. It hasn't chosen to use Title II so far, but net neutrality advocates, now including President Obama, have been pushing for its use.
Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.
Obama's support of Title II reclassification comes at a critical time for net neutrality. While the FCC is in the process of making new rules to protect net neutrality, those rules would actually allow internet providers to offer so-called "fast lanes," effectively defeating the purpose of net neutrality in the first place. During a public comment period over the summer, Americans spoke out loudly against the proposal, but it's not yet clear what the commission plans to do in response. FCC chair Tom Wheeler has said that he isn't entirely opposed to Title II, but that's appeared to be only if other methods won't work first.
Netflix might get what it wants under Obama's plan
In a statement outlining what he'd like internet service to look like, Obama highlights four major points: internet providers wouldn't be allowed to block websites offering legal content, they wouldn't be allowed to intentionally slow down or speed up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, and they wouldn't be able to offer paid fast lanes. Obama also asks that the FCC investigate and potentially apply net neutrality rules to the interconnect points that sit between service providers, like Comcast and Verizon, and content providers, like Netflix. That's potentially huge news for Netflix, which has been arguing that this area of the internet should be covered by net neutrality all year.
Obama also asks that the commission apply these rules to mobile internet service. That would be a significant change as well, as mobile service hasn't previously been subject to the same net neutrality rules that wired connections have been. That said, Obama does leave a significant amount of room for exceptions in the wireless space, potentially allowing some amount of throttling so that providers can manage their networks when under heavy use. Notably, his proposal also asks the FCC not to enforce rate regulations on internet service.
There's still the big question of whether the FCC will listen to Obama's recommendation and whether Congress will actually allow it. Obama's support of Title II reclassification may provide the political support that the commission needs to justify such a rule change, but with Republicans wary of regulation taking over the Senate, it's an increasingly risky proposition. The FCC may set the rules, but there's plenty that Congress can do to sway its decisions. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has already tweeted out, "'Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."
"We will incorporate the President’s submission into the record."
Following Obama's announcement, the FCC responded with a statement that doesn't really move the needle — and, in fact, basically says that it'll lump Obama's opinion in with everyone else's. "As an independent regulatory agency we will incorporate the President’s submission into the record of the Open Internet proceeding," chairman Wheeler says. "We welcome comment on it and how it proposes to use Title II of the Communications Act."
Obama is well aware that he doesn't set the policy here, but his statement points out to the commission that this policy change is well supported by the public. "The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately the decision is their's alone," Obama says. "But the public has already commented nearly 4 million times asking that consumers — not the cable company — gets to decide which sites they use."
The Hill reports that Republicans are already moving toward an overhaul of the Communications Act after last week's election, potentially streamlining the rules used to regulate different types of services, like phone, TV, and internet. Exactly what those changes will mean are unclear, but net neutrality advocates are reportedly concerned that it could move toward a deregulation of the communications industry.
In its statement, the FCC also confirms reports that it's been examining taking a "hybrid" approach to net neutrality. It's believed that the commission's hybrid plan would place heavy regulations on interconnect points — making content providers like Netflix happy — while still allowing some degree of fast lanes for consumers.
Ultimately, the FCC just says that it needs more time. While it had hoped to have net neutrality rules in place by the end of the year, it's clearly found that its current plans aren't what people want. It now says that it needs time to determine what legal obstacles would come up should it use a hybrid approach or full Title II reclassification. "The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options," Wheeler writes, "the more it has become plain that there is more work to do."
You can read Obama's full statement below:
An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.
"Net neutrality" has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.
When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:
The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.
To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.
So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.
Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.
The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.
"Net neutrality" has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.
When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:
- No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
- No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called "throttling" — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
- Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called "last mile" — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
- No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a "slow lane" because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.
To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.
So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.
Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.
The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
The British government is looking at creating a new legal ability for the state to silence dissenters
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/theresa-may-extremism-disruption-orders
What are Theresa May’s new ‘extremism disruption orders’?
Analysis: Home secretary’s plans to ban extremists from accessing web and TV could affect non-violent political activists
Theresa May is to announce measures against extremists who 'spread hate but do not break existing laws'. Photograph: Luke Macgregor/Reuters
“Theresa May will also announce that the Conservative manifesto will contain pledges to introduce banning orders for extremist groups and extremism disruption orders for extremists who spread hate but do not break existing laws.” Conservative briefing note.
The home secretary’s manifesto plan to silence extremists by banning their access to the web and television is cast far wider than the Islamist “preachers of hate” of tabloid headlines. As David Cameron pointed out, the Conservatives now want to look at the “full spectrum of extremism” and not just the “hard end” of that spectrum that counter-terrorism policy has focused on up to now.
The difference is spelled out in the detail of the policy, where it says that it is intended to catch not just those who “spread or incite hatred” on grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake “harmful activities” for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.
This is an area fraught with difficulties that could see non-violent political activists in all sorts of areas deemed to be “anti-democratic”. The Conservatives already say that the policy would catch neo-Nazis, raising questions about whether the EDL or the BNP would be banned under the measure. But the official definition of non-violent extremism is already wide-ranging and, as Big Brother Watch has pointed out, the national extremism database already includes the names of people who have done little more than organise meetings on environmental issues.
So what would an “extremism disruption order” involve? The police will be able to apply to the high court for an order to restrict the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder or even a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or the vague-sounding “threat to the functioning of democracy”. These are very low thresholds. The restrictions would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or in print. Taking part in public protests or speaking at any public event would also be banned. It is no wonder the Liberal Democrats blocked the plan’s immediate introduction on free speech grounds.
How could a broadcast ban work? Between 1988 and 1994 Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were banned by Margaret Thatcher from the airwaves to “deny them the oxygen of publicity”. The broadcasters used actors to speak their words to get around the ban. In the case of Adams, the actor Stephen Rea was often used to voice his words. The effect was that the public quickly came to think that Rea’s voice was that of Adams. John Major abandoned the restrictions in 1994 after he became prime minister.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/theresa-may-extremism-disruption-orders
What are Theresa May’s new ‘extremism disruption orders’?
Analysis: Home secretary’s plans to ban extremists from accessing web and TV could affect non-violent political activists
- Alan Travis, home affairs editor
- The Guardian,
- Tuesday 30 September 2014 10.56 BST
“Theresa May will also announce that the Conservative manifesto will contain pledges to introduce banning orders for extremist groups and extremism disruption orders for extremists who spread hate but do not break existing laws.” Conservative briefing note.
The home secretary’s manifesto plan to silence extremists by banning their access to the web and television is cast far wider than the Islamist “preachers of hate” of tabloid headlines. As David Cameron pointed out, the Conservatives now want to look at the “full spectrum of extremism” and not just the “hard end” of that spectrum that counter-terrorism policy has focused on up to now.
The difference is spelled out in the detail of the policy, where it says that it is intended to catch not just those who “spread or incite hatred” on grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake “harmful activities” for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.
This is an area fraught with difficulties that could see non-violent political activists in all sorts of areas deemed to be “anti-democratic”. The Conservatives already say that the policy would catch neo-Nazis, raising questions about whether the EDL or the BNP would be banned under the measure. But the official definition of non-violent extremism is already wide-ranging and, as Big Brother Watch has pointed out, the national extremism database already includes the names of people who have done little more than organise meetings on environmental issues.
So what would an “extremism disruption order” involve? The police will be able to apply to the high court for an order to restrict the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder or even a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or the vague-sounding “threat to the functioning of democracy”. These are very low thresholds. The restrictions would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or in print. Taking part in public protests or speaking at any public event would also be banned. It is no wonder the Liberal Democrats blocked the plan’s immediate introduction on free speech grounds.
How could a broadcast ban work? Between 1988 and 1994 Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were banned by Margaret Thatcher from the airwaves to “deny them the oxygen of publicity”. The broadcasters used actors to speak their words to get around the ban. In the case of Adams, the actor Stephen Rea was often used to voice his words. The effect was that the public quickly came to think that Rea’s voice was that of Adams. John Major abandoned the restrictions in 1994 after he became prime minister.
Last edited:
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/fluoride-named-neurotoxin-medical-journal/
[h=1]Medical Journal Designates Fluoride as Neurotoxin[/h]
(muir: well duh! No shit!)
Fluoridation, the process of adding fluoride to public water supplies in an effort to prevent cavities, has courted controversy since its introduction in the US during the 1940s. Now, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet has published a report that supports what opponents of fluoride have long been arguing. In essence, the journal article pointed to the fact that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.
[h=2]Fluoride: A Dangerous Neurotoxin[/h] The peer-reviewed report, which builds off a 2006 study that looked at five potential neurotoxins, now adds fluoride to the list of harmful environmental pollutants. [SUP][1][/SUP] In fact, fluoride is listed alongside such well-known hazards as lead, mercury, and arsenic. Developmental neurotoxins at high enough levels can cause developmental disorders and are particularly hazardous to fetuses and young children whose brains are still developing. Dr. Philippe Grandjean and Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, the authors of the study, are advocating for a global prevention strategy to control what they call a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.” They also believe that there are still undiscovered industrial neurotoxins and state that chemicals that have not been tested for neurotoxicity should not automatically be presumed safe for brain development.
[h=2]Other Concerns[/h] In addition to the fluoride warnings published in the journal, a recent meta-analysis from Harvard found a correlation between fluoridated water and low IQ scores in children who grew up in the most fluoridated areas. Other studies have linked fluoridation to certain types of cancer. Again, these are mere correlations, but they are consistently strong and warrant further investigation. Mandatory fluoridation has been banned in many countries across the world, including most of Europe, where the addition of chemicals to the public water supply is generally viewed as unethical, especially when there is no significant health benefits. However, fluoride is still commonly added to the public water supplies of most of North America.
[h=2]What Can You Do?[/h] A high-quality water filter installed in your home can help eliminate, or at least reduce, the amount of fluoride you and your family are exposed to on a daily basis. Also, write a letter to your local government officials relaying your concerns over the fluoridation of the public water supply. Educate yourself first to see if your city’s water is fluoridated.
-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, ND, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM
[h=4]References:[/h]
[h=1]Medical Journal Designates Fluoride as Neurotoxin[/h]
(muir: well duh! No shit!)
Fluoridation, the process of adding fluoride to public water supplies in an effort to prevent cavities, has courted controversy since its introduction in the US during the 1940s. Now, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet has published a report that supports what opponents of fluoride have long been arguing. In essence, the journal article pointed to the fact that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.
[h=2]Fluoride: A Dangerous Neurotoxin[/h] The peer-reviewed report, which builds off a 2006 study that looked at five potential neurotoxins, now adds fluoride to the list of harmful environmental pollutants. [SUP][1][/SUP] In fact, fluoride is listed alongside such well-known hazards as lead, mercury, and arsenic. Developmental neurotoxins at high enough levels can cause developmental disorders and are particularly hazardous to fetuses and young children whose brains are still developing. Dr. Philippe Grandjean and Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, the authors of the study, are advocating for a global prevention strategy to control what they call a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.” They also believe that there are still undiscovered industrial neurotoxins and state that chemicals that have not been tested for neurotoxicity should not automatically be presumed safe for brain development.
[h=2]Other Concerns[/h] In addition to the fluoride warnings published in the journal, a recent meta-analysis from Harvard found a correlation between fluoridated water and low IQ scores in children who grew up in the most fluoridated areas. Other studies have linked fluoridation to certain types of cancer. Again, these are mere correlations, but they are consistently strong and warrant further investigation. Mandatory fluoridation has been banned in many countries across the world, including most of Europe, where the addition of chemicals to the public water supply is generally viewed as unethical, especially when there is no significant health benefits. However, fluoride is still commonly added to the public water supplies of most of North America.
[h=2]What Can You Do?[/h] A high-quality water filter installed in your home can help eliminate, or at least reduce, the amount of fluoride you and your family are exposed to on a daily basis. Also, write a letter to your local government officials relaying your concerns over the fluoridation of the public water supply. Educate yourself first to see if your city’s water is fluoridated.
-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, ND, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM
[h=4]References:[/h]
- Dr. Philippe Grandjean, MD, Philip J. Landrigan, MD. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 330-338, March 2014. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3.